Modern Martyrdom

[SoylentGreen]

[QUOTE=minorwork;839300]Perhaps I've implied such decisions are made lightly. If so, let me clarify that I would not make a decision regarding martyrdom and/or abortion lightly, should the occasion present itself which is out of the question regarding abortion. Yet I know of no woman who took THAT decision lightly. Is it a painful decision? Painful? Perhaps of a different sort of pain than physical pain, maybe.
QUOTE]
Pain does not necessarily mean physical.

I didn't advise how to correct a mishit now that you mention it. Where are you going here?

That some things don't get easier with repetition.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that martyrdom is a success when a situation exists that necessitates an immolation or war? My ONLY point was that killing, of self or opponent, indicates failures of other means of resolving conflict. Are you pushing for martyrdom as the first line of conflict resolution?

Not the first line but definitly a consideration. It is a matter of when all else fails there is either the choice of kill your opponent or die and show him that death is not going to be a solution.

[minorwork]

Pain does not necessarily mean physical.

Ergo my confusion. I was leaning more to the physical pain only and discounting empathic pain(concern) associated predominantly with relatives getting themselves in trouble that keeps me up nights along with the general concern with the hardships of those I don't know.

That some things don't get easier with repetition.

Committing multiple suicides? I admit to making light of the likelihood of a single self-inflicted blow from a ball peen hammer necessitating a second and third blow that gives a person a chance to change their minds. This in opposition to the use of a shotgun to the head or jumping off of tall buildings, those techniques that require little to no practice to achieve perfection of technique.

Not the first line but definitely a consideration. It is a matter of when all else fails there is either the choice of kill your opponent or die and show him that death is not going to be a solution.

I don't understand how favoring, with my consent, whoever presents my choice of death or life as a solution to his problem, shows him that death is not a solution. What? The pastor, originally, was supposedly given the choice to recant or be hanged. Either choice of the pastor serves the purpose of the government trying the man. How does choosing to be hung show anybody or any agency that death is not a solution? Survival in this case is NOT a win?????

[SoylentGreen]

I don't understand how favoring, with my consent, whoever presents my choice of death or life as a solution to his problem, shows him that death is not a solution. What? The pastor, originally, was supposedly given the choice to recant or be hanged. Either choice of the pastor serves the purpose of the government trying the man. How does choosing to be hung show anybody or any agency that death is not a solution? Survival in this case is NOT a win?????

I se the problem now, your an american capitalist. Therefore with you it's all about the "me".
Martydom is all about the so called "greater good". Which you may or may not appreciate or even agree with.

I have no proof, but to me this only makes sense if the assumption by you of choice is wrong. The priest, like the budhist knew that they were only being offered one real choice. Extermination by a malevolent government or make a stand.

[minorwork]

I se the problem now, your an American capitalist. Therefore with you it's all about the "me".

Really? Ad hominems to bolster your straw man?

Martyrdom is all about the so called "greater good". Which you may or may not appreciate or even agree with.

I can appreciate the concept but don't agree that martyrdom is the noble tactic that the Imans and priests make it out to be in their exhortations and promises of rewards after death for those swallowing such tripe. I appreciate martyrdom but am repulsed by descriptions of the martyr's act as evidence for an afterlife. I am repulsed by appealing to an afterlife as the location of a reward for the martyr and some lesser glory for the man dying from an infection.

I have no proof, but to me this only makes sense if the assumption by you of choice is wrong. The priest, like the Buddhist knew that they were only being offered one real choice. Extermination by a malevolent government or make a stand.

So both the Iranian pastor and the Buddhist are out of choices? I don't buy that.

Are Buddhist martyrs more noble than Christian martyrs? I can appreciate that for sure. That would make your image of martyrdom more relevant to the world of the living. Yeah, I can feel better about the "why" of martyrdom, but still don't give it blanket approval because more can be done in the field of action than from the grave. I doubt that Iranian pastor has reached the point of last resort regarding his extermination and/or his ability to worship his God.

Having said that, of course I make exceptions for the overloaded lifeboat volunteer, the soldier falling on a grenade, and such. Is the Buddhist in that class? Is the Iranian pastor? Does a proper martyring demand a proper intention that must be for the common good?

[Marwood]

minorwork, do you completely reject the idea that another person could hold any belief at all that they would feel genuinely unable to recant?

[Sunbelt]

What's that got to do with committing a martyr's suicide? The choice is clear for the pastor. He doesn't have to sacrifice his first born son as Abraham was tempted to do. He merely says a few of the right type of words. I suggest his pride is getting in the way. His believing he knows God's will for him that does not involve life says he's believing or listening to the opponent instead of God.

That choice is clear for you, not for the pastor. He's willing to die for his convictions.

[Eliza]

Minorwork, Jesus' words are not open for interpretation, they cannot be twisted to suit whoever would like them to suit. He said, whoever disowned him he would disown' which seems fair enough to me.

You say that martydom is a sick enterprise fostered by an unfounded belief in an afterlife. You could not be more wrong if you think that is the driving and over riding passion that makes someone give up their life for a belief.

The pastor is willing to die for something that permeates his whole life, it's not a Sunday service, or a few charitable deeds, it's a deep and unbreakable bond with God. Do you find that hard to fathom? That someone could feel that level of commitment? Evidently you do. It involves great suffering emotionally, for the natural order of things is to cling to life and loved ones.

You may think a belief in an afterlife is delusional, that's just your opinion. And it is secondary to the man or woman who puts their life on the line. And what is Modern Martydom? It's been the same martydom down the ages, nothing modern about it at all. Which might explain alot.

[SoylentGreen]

Really? Ad hominems to bolster your straw man?

Since when is it an ad hom to call someone a capitalist? And as your argument (correct me if i am wrong) seems to be along the lines of "what's in it for me" when it comes to martydom. So then the liking of you to a capitalist seems appropriate.

I can appreciate the concept but don't agree that martyrdom is the noble tactic that the Imans and priests make it out to be in their exhortations and promises of rewards after death for those swallowing such tripe. I appreciate martyrdom but am repulsed by descriptions of the martyr's act as evidence for an afterlife. I am repulsed by appealing to an afterlife as the location of a reward for the martyr and some lesser glory for the man dying from an infection.

Which is why, in my first post on this subject i asked about political martydom. And gave another example of a martyr.

So both the Iranian pastor and the Buddhist are out of choices? I don't buy that.

Why not? In the case of the budhist, the regime of vietnam was systematically wiping out budhists. The act of self immolation was a political statement not a religious one. The budhist was trying to gain recognition of what was happening. An event that both the vietnam government and the american government were keen to keep secret.
However the pastor's is a religious conviction.

Are Buddhist martyrs more noble than Christian martyrs? I can appreciate that for sure. That would make your image of martyrdom more relevant to the world of the living. Yeah, I can feel better about the "why" of martyrdom, but still don't give it blanket approval because more can be done in the field of action than from the grave. I doubt that Iranian pastor has reached the point of last resort regarding his extermination and/or his ability to worship his God.

According to the news article execution was unlikely.

execution for apostasy has not been carried out in Iran since 1990

.
But that making it a high profile case and making a claim that execution was likely because:

The key is to keep up the pressure and to publicize the story because it obviously outrages most people,"

So it wasn't even real martydom just a publicity stunt.

Having said that, of course I make exceptions for the overloaded lifeboat volunteer, the soldier falling on a grenade, and such. Is the Buddhist in that class? Is the Iranian pastor? Does a proper martyring demand a proper intention that must be for the common good?

I would say the budhist was in that class, he sacrificed himself so that people all over the world would understand exactly what the vietnam government was doing and the americans were hiding.

[minorwork]

minorwork, do you completely reject the idea that another person could hold any belief at all that they would feel genuinely unable to recant?

How can I reject that which exists? Certainly the delusional opt for martyrdom presuming rewards for the act after they're dead. Certainly there exists a necessity for some leaving an overloaded lifeboat with the idea that some better than all should die. The first instance demonstrates delusion absent evidence of an afterlife. Such a strong delusion too, in the martyr of the first instance. If Abraham's delusion had been of such strength he would have slain Isaac.

[minorwork]

That choice is clear for you, not for the pastor. He's willing to die for his convictions.

Of course he is. Bernie Madoff's investors eagerly pressed him to take their wealth. Ted Haggard preached against drugs and homosexuality too all the while accepting the trusting congregations wealth, them not knowing of the reality behind the veil. Their victims suffered apocalyptic revelations of the character of their manipulators. And there is far more evidence of Ted and Bernie's existence than of God's or the afterlife. There is insufficient evidence for an afterlife to conclude that rewards for acts in this life is nothing more than wishful thinking. Martyrdom, for establishing one's place in the afterlife, is a selfish vain act.

[minorwork]

Minorwork, Jesus' words are not open for interpretation, they cannot be twisted to suit whoever would like them to suit. He said, whoever disowned him he would disown' which seems fair enough to me.

If you're not Jesus, then you too are twisting the words to your use of the language and I doubt Jesus spoke English. But you are confident you are not guilty of that which you would accuse others? Seems condescending to me, that you are immune from your own criticisms. But if you're Jesus I'll give you a pass for your authorship of the words.

You say that martyrdom is a sick enterprise fostered by an unfounded belief in an afterlife. You could not be more wrong if you think that is the driving and over riding passion that makes someone give up their life for a belief.

I assure you that, if true, I consider your words to be good news, indeed. I presume you are able to speak only for yourself in this matter?

The pastor is willing to die for something that permeates his whole life, it's not a Sunday service, or a few charitable deeds, it's a deep and unbreakable bond with God. Do you find that hard to fathom? That someone could feel that level of commitment? Evidently you do. It involves great suffering emotionally, for the natural order of things is to cling to life and loved ones.

Seems pretty silly to give up the natural order of things when you put it like that. You would give up, by choosing to die, that deep unbreakable bond with God? For what?

You may think a belief in an afterlife is delusional, that's just your opinion. And it is secondary to the man or woman who puts their life on the line. And what is Modern Martyrdom? It's been the same martyrdom down the ages, nothing modern about it at all. Which might explain alot.

Buddhist's don't believe in God. If you were a Buddhist martyr what could be the reason for your martyring yourself? Are Buddhist and Christian martyrdoms the same? It doesn't seem so by your description.

[minorwork]

Since when is it an ad hom to call someone a capitalist? And as your argument (correct me if i am wrong) seems to be along the lines of "what's in it for me" when it comes to martyrdom. So then the liking of you to a capitalist seems appropriate.

Sounds like a personal problem you've got there. It's an Ad Hominem fallacy unless its true. It's not. Your strawman of capitalism with "what's in it for me" falls apart when I embrace helping neighbors and those unknown to me with my rather impersonal advocacy of raising money with taxes to cover those less well off than Bill Gates, Warren buffet, and myself.

Which is why, in my first post on this subject i asked about political martyrdom. And gave another example of a martyr.

I appreciate the modern martyr's political goals far more than I do the goals promising favoritism by a deity in a mythical afterlife.

Why not? In the case of the Buddhist, the regime of Vietnam was systematically wiping out Buddhists. The act of self immolation was a political statement not a religious one. The Buddhist was trying to gain recognition of what was happening. An event that both the Vietnam government and the American government were keen to keep secret.
However the pastor's is a religious conviction.

OK. I see your distinction and embrace it. I'll give the Buddhist kudos in the same way I'd give Patrick Henry kudos if his statement had gotten him hung.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

But your distinguishing between the pastor and the Buddhist martyrs as prodded by religion and the other not, and my embracing the thought, I'll expect challenges from the Christians that Buddhism is a religion since more than one of the Christians are quick to crazily declare science a religion too.

According to the news article execution was unlikely.
.
But that making it a high profile case and making a claim that execution was likely because:

So it wasn't even real martyrdom just a publicity stunt.

Another saint spared by God's Hand in the tradition of Abraham and Isaac? Or in the tradition of Kent Hovind and Peter Popoff?

I would say the Buddhist was in that class, he sacrificed himself so that people all over the world would understand exactly what the Vietnam government was doing and the Americans were hiding.

OK, sure. I'll support the immolate's action on those terms. But damn, I'd have sure been casting around for some other way first.

Do you think we'll have to wait much longer for the Occupy Wall Street bunch to show similar resolve? Be hard for Fox to ignore an immolation.